Magnitude and distribution of option value for the Washakie Wilderness, northwest Wyoming, USA

Abstract

/ Option value is estimated for the Washakie Wilderness, northwest Wyoming, USA, using the contingent valuation technique. Consumer surplus, the traditional measure of economic value, is estimated separately and compared with option value. Several populations are tested, including Washakie visitors, Yellowstone National Park visitors, and residents from four metropolitan test markets: Salt Lake City, Utah; Portland, Oregon; Nashville, Tennessee; and Orlando, Florida, USA. The average annual preservation option value (consumer surplus) expressed by on-site wilderness visitors is $46.17 ($80.13), by urban residents is $9.70 ($8.97), and by rural residents is $8.43 ($7.80). Four selected attributes are determined to be important in motivating option demand for the Washakie, including existence value, bequest value, the desire for an on-site visit, and interest in securing the visiting privileges of others. The results suggest that option value is important in wilderness valuation and that off-site users account for a large part of the economic value of wilderness.Advancing technology increases the pressure to remove natural resources from remote lands by expanding the resource base and reducing extraction costs. A classic valuation asymmetry arises when development encroaches upon public lands valued in the natural state, like wilderness, parks, and critical wildlife habitat. The value of land in forestry, agriculture, or mineral extraction is easily obtained, but establishing the intangible value of the natural world is not so straightforward (Krutilla and Fisher 1975). The services of the natural state are rarely marketed; nor can the problem be solved by creating markets. The collective-consumption aspect of amenity resources dictates that markets would be inefficient. The valuation asymmetry often results in biased land allocation decisions: the intangible value of the natural environment is ignored, or assumed to be small, when compared with the more readily marketed commodities that can be extracted from it. Without an anchor for the nonmarket side, the decision-making process is free to drift toward special interests. Moreover, without reasonable value estimates for wild environments, it is impossible to know if irreversible allocations to other uses are correct or not.Consumer surplus captures the traditional non-

Valuing wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation

“…For example, CV studies that have attempted to value wilderness threatened by destructive activities such as oil drilling or hydro-schemes have either elicited people's WTP for wilderness preservation (e.g. Barrick and Beazley, 1990) or their WTP to avoid developments (Sanders et al, 1990 andCarlsen et al, 1993). These scenarios assume that developers have the property rights even though the legal situation is disputed by many stakeholders.…”

How viewing a forest affects willingness to pay of users and non-users in Contingent Valuation Method?

“…Factors influencing the probability of agreeing to particular WTP values among people seeing and not seeing the forest while being surveyed were assessed separately. Generally, we anticipated a relatively low impact of respondent's characteristics on valuations in both groups since the forest is considered to be a good that is of large scale importance (according to Barrick and Beazley, 1990). Nevertheless, the study showed that the declarations of respondents, especially their refusals to pay the initial bid, were much more sensitive to a respondents' socio-economic status when they did not see the good in question.…”

Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope

“…A number of studies have found a negative relationship between a respondent's distance from the site and his or her willingness to pay for it (e.g., Gnun.lich, 1977;Sutherland and Walsh, 1985;Bateman et a/., 1992). Researchers have typically found that direct users of a resource are willing to pay substantially more than passive users (Barrick and Beazley, 1990;Carson and Mitchell, 1993).…”